Being pulled over by LEO

[et2]

Never have been, and don't plan to be. Very curious as to the actual procedure if it happened. Now I'm sure the officer would come to the side door ( by passenger up front on our DP).

So should I get up and open the door and step out to meet them, or allow the wife to unlock the door. If you allow them to step inside or you open the door to them have you given up your right to being searched as we invited them in? Or let's say they climb the step and sorta put a arm inside on the dash. Just wondering what the legal ramifications would be. Personally our dogs wouldn't take kindly to their entrance.

If anyone has had this happen what has it gone like? I as many others believe in protecting our rights. Just curious if making them stand outside raises flags on their end. I certainly wouldn't invite them to sit in my car if that were the case.

Just pass the info needed out the screen door opening?
Might be a silly post. Just has me wondering what most people would do

[W4RLR]

1. Legally, the LEO can lie to you without any form of repercussions affecting him. YOU cannot lie to a LEO because if you are caught lying, there are legal repercussions for you.
2, Any lawyer worthy of the title will tell you that you should NEVER consent to a search of your vehicle. If the LEO has probable cause he can search anyway. If he does not have probable cause, you have just set yourself up for a search that the LEO would not normally be able to do.
3. Be civil, but know that the LEO is NOT your friend, your pal, or your buddy. You were stopped for an infraction of the law and possibly an investigation into whether you are involved in something more nefarious, based upon you and your vehicle fitting a certain profile.
4. The courts have ruled that carrying large sums of cash is indicative of drug activity, and the police can and have seized traveler's cash under suspicion of it being the ill gotten gains of drug activity. Then it is up to you to prove otherwise. There is no innocent until proven guilty.

Therefore, I NEvER allow my vehicle to be searched when an officer requests it incident to a traffic stop. If there is probable cause, he will search without having to ask. If he wants to go fishing, make him get a license, in other words, a warrant from a judge.

You have certain rights in this country, and if you do not exercise those rights, they're as good as gone.

[gemert]

obgraham wrote:
For those that think an unwarranted search is okay because "they have nothing to hide", keep in mind that some legitimate things you might do can trigger consequences in the mind of the LEO.

I'm thinking of those who have had their cash impounded because it looked like they were carrying too much. When in fact they were Canadians, heading south for the winter, and took their money in currency, several thousand dollars worth. Maybe that's not wise, but they didn't deserve to have it confiscated, then have to aergue with the courts (unsuccessfully) to get it returned.

So for me, like other police officers posting here, it's "no, I don't consent to a search". If they do it anyway, we have a situation for the courts -- nothing I can do at the time.

I think that practice has stopped. I hope so, it really gave Florida and LE a bad name. It started as a good thing and like all good things can turn out bad if not administered correctly. Truth is that the agency who did the lion's share of these seizures made a lot of money because the majority never was claimed by the person it was seized from. If a few cops had used their common sense a little more often innocent people would not have been harmed.

[obgraham]

For those that think an unwarranted search is okay because "they have nothing to hide", keep in mind that some legitimate things you might do can trigger consequences in the mind of the LEO.

I'm thinking of those who have had their cash impounded because it looked like they were carrying too much. When in fact they were Canadians, heading south for the winter, and took their money in currency, several thousand dollars worth. Maybe that's not wise, but they didn't deserve to have it confiscated, then have to aergue with the courts (unsuccessfully) to get it returned.

So for me, like other police officers posting here, it's "no, I don't consent to a search". If they do it anyway, we have a situation for the courts -- nothing I can do at the time.

[bigdog2]

I think it's time for a little humor in this thread:

Officer to the driver, " Your eyes look bloodshot, have you been drinking?"

Driver to the officer, " Your eyes look kind of glazed, have you been eating donuts?"

[msmith1199]

et2, how did what I write confirm to you that, "many LEO's consider your rights as secondary compared to their feelings and their interpretation of the law" I didn't say any such thing.

[gemert]

et2 wrote:

gemert wrote:
I do not believe that an officer has a right to enter your MH to look around the driver's area anymore than they could go over to the passenger side and get in your car with you. Everyone has the right to look in your windows anytime they want to if not on private property, including LEOs. Thats where we get our authority, in other wards none, on a traffic stop, it's open to plain view anyway. Also I ask drivers all the time if they have anything illegal in their car? When they say no, I say "then you won't mind if I search it, right?" I'm fishing! If I saw something illegal I would search whether you wanted me to or not. Believe it or not, some answer yes to that question. When I go on to search, about 90% of the time I find illegal drugs. Now having said this, I don't ask Mom and Dad with the kids heading to Church on Sunday morning! I ask if I already have a suspicion or call it a gut feeling. If they say no, then I go about my business. They will screw up again. In 35 years I've developed a pretty good "Spidy Sense"! Everybody does something to get pulled over for within a mile or two. I can legally stop just about anyone, any time if I want. Notice I said legally. When my Spidy sense goes off, it's for a good reason and I am rarely wrong. Bottom line is that most LEOs don't want to bother law abiding folks going about their business. If I do stop and you have a crappy attitude, you arouse my competitive spirit! If you have a good attitude I'd rather be at Duncan Donuts!!

Here is the very problem I have. One, I now understand which is the best procedure for the basic stop and what to expect. However, you would be pulling me over for a traffic violation or a equipment issue. I can most certainly assure you there is nothing illegal in my vehicle or anything about me. But I don't need to prove that to any LEO first. I certainly hope I'm being pulled over for some legitamate reason.So let's get that established and the basis for my rights in this country.

Then comes the issue were the LEO claims he can legally pull you over (above post) for any reason "he feels appropiate". So there is the issue, they already feel you are a target for something they have no idea at the time. Now, if your a nice person ( which I'am) you might invite them up the step to get out of the rain or road. This in my opinion gives them a reason to visually snoop and see what's up, unknown by you they want to search you to please their spider sense no matter what, it seems you will be asked.

Thus the reason I will never invite one into my MH or willingly allow them to search it. What happens after that discussion is totally up to the officer and subject to legal ramifications in the court if not done correctly. Things can be planted and you have no control over it.

I would assume and believe it's mandatory a officer needs to tell you why you being stopped. If you're going to be detained you need to be told why. My dash cam will be recording the whole thing.

1. I made it a point to put "legally" in there to say for a valid violation of the law. It could be as simple as failure to maintain a single lane if you go over the center line just once. That makes it a legitimate stop in the eyes of the law. What I was trying to express, badly I guess, is that someone can be "legally" stopped at almost any time. I'm not saying I make it a practice to do that. I have a lot more important things to do with my time. What I was trying to illustrate is that if I suspect someone of committing a more serious crime, I can legitimately do that for any small reason. I've never known an officer that uses tactics like that just for the heck of it. They would literally not be able to go more than a couple feet at a time without a new traffic stop.
2. You have to understand that I am giving you an idea what I do and what I see other LEOs do over the last 35 years. All are not perfect, all are not honest and some lie, some will plant evidence. It's just a fact some are in the business for the wrong reasons.
3. Put your self in a LEOs shoes. Would you randomly stop honest law abiding people to give them tickets for nothing or to plant evidence on them when there are legitimate violators/criminals going by every second? It just doesn't make sense. There are traffic cops that would literally give their own Mother a ticket. To get stopped for speeding by me you have to be doing 15 over, in the city. To get a ticket for speeding you have to be going 20 over. I'm not the exception, I'm pretty much the rule. We have better things to do than go after good people for BS.
3. Personally I would not go in your MH even if invited because I would be too vulnerable going up the stairs and trying to look under and behind every chair for a threat.
4. If I had probable cause to search, I would search because I had the legal right and authority to do so. To resist would not be a good thing.
5. We are on your side. I'm pretty sure I'm conversing with good people which is why I've taken the time to do so. I'm trying to help as are the vast majority of LEOs you may run in to out there.
6. Treat us like you want to be treated and it is more likely than not that you will be treated fairly and politely.
7. Yes it is mandatory for the officer to tell you why you are stopped.
8. No they can not legally keep you for an unreasonable amount of time to call a drug dog. The Courts have generally agreed that they can only keep you long enough to complete the law enforcement action that they stopped you for such as writing the ticket. Yes if you piss them off they can use their discretion to also write for every violation that they observed and can find by looking around. No we don't usually do that. Remember I'm anxious to get back to my cooling coffee at DD.
When I was a young cop I remember my Sergeant going nuts when someone wrote more than two tickets to any one driver. As a Sgt I did the same thing. As a Lieutenant I hold every Sgt in my division to the same standard. For 8 more months and then I will be out there with y'all 6 months at a time.

[et2]

msmith1199 wrote:

et2 wrote:

gemert wrote:
I do not believe that an officer has a right to enter your MH to look around the driver's area anymore than they could go over to the passenger side and get in your car with you. Everyone has the right to look in your windows anytime they want to if not on private property, including LEOs. Thats where we get our authority, in other wards none, on a traffic stop, it's open to plain view anyway. Also I ask drivers all the time if they have anything illegal in their car? When they say no, I say "then you won't mind if I search it, right?" I'm fishing! If I saw something illegal I would search whether you wanted me to or not. Believe it or not, some answer yes to that question. When I go on to search, about 90% of the time I find illegal drugs. Now having said this, I don't ask Mom and Dad with the kids heading to Church on Sunday morning! I ask if I already have a suspicion or call it a gut feeling. If they say no, then I go about my business. They will screw up again. In 35 years I've developed a pretty good "Spidy Sense"! Everybody does something to get pulled over for within a mile or two. I can legally stop just about anyone, any time if I want. Notice I said legally. When my Spidy sense goes off, it's for a good reason and I am rarely wrong. Bottom line is that most LEOs don't want to bother law abiding folks going about their business. If I do stop and you have a crappy attitude, you arouse my competitive spirit! If you have a good attitude I'd rather be at Duncan Donuts!!

Here is the very problem I have. One, I now understand which is the best procedure for the basic stop and what to expect. However, you would be pulling me over for a traffic violation or a equipment issue. I can most certainly assure you there is nothing illegal in my vehicle or anything about me. But I don't need to prove that to any LEO first. I certainly hope I'm being pulled over for some legitamate reason.So let's get that established and the basis for my rights in this country.

Then comes the issue were the LEO claims he can legally pull you over (above post) for any reason "he feels appropiate". So there is the issue, they already feel you are a target for something they have no idea at the time. Now, if your a nice person ( which I'am) you might invite them up the step to get out of the rain or road. This in my opinion gives them a reason to visually snoop and see what's up, unknown by you they want to search you to please their spider sense no matter what, it seems you will be asked.

Thus the reason I will never invite one into my MH or willingly allow them to search it. What happens after that discussion is totally up to the officer and subject to legal ramifications in the court if not done correctly. Things can be planted and you have no control over it.

I would assume and believe it's mandatory a officer needs to tell you why you being stopped. If you're going to be detained you need to be told why. My dash cam will be recording the whole thing.

I think you're arguing different points. An officer can always ask for permission to search. My answer would be, no thanks, I'd rather not have my motorhome searched. Now hopefully, assuming the officer was just asking me at random, he'll say no problem and not search. And as already mentioned, I'm a retired cop. Still doesn't mean I'd like to have my things searched. Also it may depend on why. If they asked to search and I asked why and they told me they were looking for an escaped convicted from the local prison, I'd probably go ahead and let them look through for a person. That's because if you said no there's a really good chance they may assign somebody to follow you and I don't want to force them to waste resources if they're really looking for an escaped prisoner.

Not really. It just confirms to me many LEO's consider your rights as secondary compared to their feelings and their interpretation of the law. Feelings shouldn't trump anyone's rights. My original question was what the ramifications would be being a nice guy and letting them step inside without them even asking to search. No big deal, I have my answer and we can proceed with the stop and them being outside where they belong.

What happens from there is up to them and how far they plan to take it. I'll ask at first contact the reason being pulled over.

[msmith1199]

et2 wrote:

gemert wrote:
I do not believe that an officer has a right to enter your MH to look around the driver's area anymore than they could go over to the passenger side and get in your car with you. Everyone has the right to look in your windows anytime they want to if not on private property, including LEOs. Thats where we get our authority, in other wards none, on a traffic stop, it's open to plain view anyway. Also I ask drivers all the time if they have anything illegal in their car? When they say no, I say "then you won't mind if I search it, right?" I'm fishing! If I saw something illegal I would search whether you wanted me to or not. Believe it or not, some answer yes to that question. When I go on to search, about 90% of the time I find illegal drugs. Now having said this, I don't ask Mom and Dad with the kids heading to Church on Sunday morning! I ask if I already have a suspicion or call it a gut feeling. If they say no, then I go about my business. They will screw up again. In 35 years I've developed a pretty good "Spidy Sense"! Everybody does something to get pulled over for within a mile or two. I can legally stop just about anyone, any time if I want. Notice I said legally. When my Spidy sense goes off, it's for a good reason and I am rarely wrong. Bottom line is that most LEOs don't want to bother law abiding folks going about their business. If I do stop and you have a crappy attitude, you arouse my competitive spirit! If you have a good attitude I'd rather be at Duncan Donuts!!

Here is the very problem I have. One, I now understand which is the best procedure for the basic stop and what to expect. However, you would be pulling me over for a traffic violation or a equipment issue. I can most certainly assure you there is nothing illegal in my vehicle or anything about me. But I don't need to prove that to any LEO first. I certainly hope I'm being pulled over for some legitamate reason.So let's get that established and the basis for my rights in this country.

Then comes the issue were the LEO claims he can legally pull you over (above post) for any reason "he feels appropiate". So there is the issue, they already feel you are a target for something they have no idea at the time. Now, if your a nice person ( which I'am) you might invite them up the step to get out of the rain or road. This in my opinion gives them a reason to visually snoop and see what's up, unknown by you they want to search you to please their spider sense no matter what, it seems you will be asked.

Thus the reason I will never invite one into my MH or willingly allow them to search it. What happens after that discussion is totally up to the officer and subject to legal ramifications in the court if not done correctly. Things can be planted and you have no control over it.

I would assume and believe it's mandatory a officer needs to tell you why you being stopped. If you're going to be detained you need to be told why. My dash cam will be recording the whole thing.

I think you're arguing different points. An officer can always ask for permission to search. My answer would be, no thanks, I'd rather not have my motorhome searched. Now hopefully, assuming the officer was just asking me at random, he'll say no problem and not search. And as already mentioned, I'm a retired cop. Still doesn't mean I'd like to have my things searched. Also it may depend on why. If they asked to search and I asked why and they told me they were looking for an escaped convicted from the local prison, I'd probably go ahead and let them look through for a person. That's because if you said no there's a really good chance they may assign somebody to follow you and I don't want to force them to waste resources if they're really looking for an escaped prisoner.

[msmith1199]

rgatijnet1 wrote:

msmith1199 wrote:

CHP had no quota and they really don't. They are under almost no pressure to write tickets. Now they do have to write some as they are traffic officers, but they are not pressured to write like in some states. And again if this happened as you said you were not in violation of the law.

The problem is IF you want to hang around, or come back to go to court, it is still down to your word against the officer's, with no camera to back up your version.
Who do you think the judge will believe? How much time will you lose from your trip?
It seems to me that you may be right but you are fighting a losing battle that will just cost you more to argue the point before a judge.

You are assuming the officer is going to lie. If the officer tells the truth, and it happened as this person said, then the Traffic Judge will inform the CHP officer he was mistaken and will dismiss the ticket.

[et2]

gemert wrote:
I do not believe that an officer has a right to enter your MH to look around the driver's area anymore than they could go over to the passenger side and get in your car with you. Everyone has the right to look in your windows anytime they want to if not on private property, including LEOs. Thats where we get our authority, in other wards none, on a traffic stop, it's open to plain view anyway. Also I ask drivers all the time if they have anything illegal in their car? When they say no, I say "then you won't mind if I search it, right?" I'm fishing! If I saw something illegal I would search whether you wanted me to or not. Believe it or not, some answer yes to that question. When I go on to search, about 90% of the time I find illegal drugs. Now having said this, I don't ask Mom and Dad with the kids heading to Church on Sunday morning! I ask if I already have a suspicion or call it a gut feeling. If they say no, then I go about my business. They will screw up again. In 35 years I've developed a pretty good "Spidy Sense"! Everybody does something to get pulled over for within a mile or two. I can legally stop just about anyone, any time if I want. Notice I said legally. When my Spidy sense goes off, it's for a good reason and I am rarely wrong. Bottom line is that most LEOs don't want to bother law abiding folks going about their business. If I do stop and you have a crappy attitude, you arouse my competitive spirit! If you have a good attitude I'd rather be at Duncan Donuts!!

Here is the very problem I have. One, I now understand which is the best procedure for the basic stop and what to expect. However, you would be pulling me over for a traffic violation or a equipment issue. I can most certainly assure you there is nothing illegal in my vehicle or anything about me. But I don't need to prove that to any LEO first. I certainly hope I'm being pulled over for some legitamate reason.So let's get that established and the basis for my rights in this country.

Then comes the issue were the LEO claims he can legally pull you over (above post) for any reason "he feels appropiate". So there is the issue, they already feel you are a target for something they have no idea at the time. Now, if your a nice person ( which I'am) you might invite them up the step to get out of the rain or road. This in my opinion gives them a reason to visually snoop and see what's up, unknown by you they want to search you to please their spider sense no matter what, it seems you will be asked.

Thus the reason I will never invite one into my MH or willingly allow them to search it. What happens after that discussion is totally up to the officer and subject to legal ramifications in the court if not done correctly. Things can be planted and you have no control over it.

I would assume and believe it's mandatory a officer needs to tell you why you being stopped. If you're going to be detained you need to be told why. My dash cam will be recording the whole thing.

[gemert]

I do not believe that an officer has a right to enter your MH to look around the driver's area anymore than they could go over to the passenger side and get in your car with you. Everyone has the right to look in your windows anytime they want to if not on private property, including LEOs. Thats where we get our authority, in other wards none, on a traffic stop, it's open to plain view anyway. Also I ask drivers all the time if they have anything illegal in their car? When they say no, I say "then you won't mind if I search it, right?" I'm fishing! If I saw something illegal I would search whether you wanted me to or not. Believe it or not, some answer yes to that question. When I go on to search, about 90% of the time I find illegal drugs. Now having said this, I don't ask Mom and Dad with the kids heading to Church on Sunday morning! I ask if I already have a suspicion or call it a gut feeling. If they say no, then I go about my business. They will screw up again. In 35 years I've developed a pretty good "Spidy Sense"! Everybody does something to get pulled over for within a mile or two. I can legally stop just about anyone, any time if I want. Notice I said legally. When my Spidy sense goes off, it's for a good reason and I am rarely wrong. Bottom line is that most LEOs don't want to bother law abiding folks going about their business. If I do stop and you have a crappy attitude, you arouse my competitive spirit! If you have a good attitude I'd rather be at Duncan Donuts!!

[rgatijnet1]

msmith1199 wrote:

CHP had no quota and they really don't. They are under almost no pressure to write tickets. Now they do have to write some as they are traffic officers, but they are not pressured to write like in some states. And again if this happened as you said you were not in violation of the law.

The problem is IF you want to hang around, or come back to go to court, it is still down to your word against the officer's, with no camera to back up your version.
Who do you think the judge will believe? How much time will you lose from your trip?
It seems to me that you may be right but you are fighting a losing battle that will just cost you more to argue the point before a judge.

[msmith1199]

RayChez wrote:

racecarfan wrote:
If A cop saw you enter the intersection after it turned yellow when it was clear that you had time to stop and not enter but did and then proceeded to make your turn under red you can be ticketed I don't care what you think.

That is just it racecarfan. The light was green and as I committed to make the left turn it turned yellow when I was about the middle of my turn and then red which my coach had cleared, but the officer said my toad had not cleared completely out of the intersection. As you know with a 38'diesel pusher pulling a Honda Pilot you just do not speed up to make the turn. If you do, things could come flying out of the kitchen cabinets.

Anyways it is paid for and my decision was not to drive a couple of hundred miles round trip to go fight it in court. The officer was a very young highway patrolman and I assume he was trying to give out his quota. He did claim that he was hoping I would be in the clear so that he did not have to give me the ticket. LOL! YEA SURE!

CHP had no quota and they really don't. They are under almost no pressure to write tickets. Now they do have to write some as they are traffic officers, but they are not pressured to write like in some states. And again if this happened as you said you were not in violation of the law.

[ddndoug]

JetAOnly and et2 - Point taken.

Doug